Bumped off the Today programme for being too right wing
Tomorrow I was due to achieve a lifetime’s ambition - appearing live on the Today programme. But I have been bumped off for being too right wing. I am being replaced by Jonathan Yeo, the osn of Tim Yeo, as he is presumably left wing. Let me explain. On Wednesday night I am appearing with Grayson Perry, the artist, along with others, to debate the motion “Modern Art is Left Wing”. It hardly needs debating. Modern art is obviously right wing - it sells for millions and is the play thing of hedge fund managers. Apparently Grayson agrees with me, so in order to have an argument, Today have asked Jonathan on instead. Although he is the son of a Tory MP, he recently did a portrait of President Bush made up of pornographic images. So he must be a left wing modern artist. Oh well, i’ll just have to make do with arguing with John Humphreys when I next see him in Ravenscourt Park.
Votedave said on November 12th, 2007 at 9:46 pm:
You’re right-wing?! What must they think of Norman Tebbit?
canvas said on November 12th, 2007 at 10:01 pm:
Fine art is BIG business for big capitalists. Art is for all - and you can never REALLY own it.
Tim Yeo is a bad artist. Grayson Perry is a good artist.
:)
canvas said on November 12th, 2007 at 10:02 pm:
Sorry I meant Jonathan Yeo is a bad artist - but I bet Tim Yeo is bad too! LoL
canvas said on November 12th, 2007 at 10:29 pm:
One last comment - I think you might mean ‘contemporary art’ ? Modern art is generally thought of as 20th century art…
Damien Hirst has to be considered as the most right wing LIVING contemporary artist in the world. Yes? No?
Cllr Harry Phibbs said on November 12th, 2007 at 11:17 pm:
Well done on visiting Ravenscourt Park. Please do let me know of any ideas on how you would like to see the park improved.
Tizzy said on November 13th, 2007 at 12:49 am:
Liking your sense of humour!
You’re right, Canvas, modern art is so last century. Tate Modern, Modern Art Oxford, etc should rename themselves immediately.
Tizzy said on November 13th, 2007 at 3:20 am:
From today’s (Tuesday 13 Nov) Guardian:
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/art/news/story/0,,2209986,00.html
Hugh Grant (cue: Canvas swoons) to sell a Warhol, and the state of the ‘jittery’ arts market, thanks to the US sub-prime etc etc
Tizzy said on November 13th, 2007 at 3:21 am:
Ed, sort your clock out on this site!
canvas said on November 13th, 2007 at 5:46 pm:
Tizzy, Hugh is very wise to get rid of ‘Liz’ right now!
I would never advise anyone to buy a Warhol - unless it was an early one with imppecable provenance. Really, don’t do it.
canvas said on November 13th, 2007 at 5:48 pm:
impeccable too! Why can’t we edit on this blog?! Sheesh!
Votedave said on November 13th, 2007 at 6:25 pm:
I once watched a French and Saunders scene set in Tate Modern, where the two ladies were slowly walking around the museum.
After about three rather dull, silent minutes - Dawn shouted excitedly: “There it is!” She was of course, referring to the museum café!
A classic.
canvas said on November 13th, 2007 at 9:08 pm:
Oh, VoteDave - what are we going to do with you?!
I recently published a slightly (!) pornographic cartoon of George Bush and Dick Cheney on Webcameron. Webcameron removed the image and I was reprimanded. hehehe.
Satire is important… But that doesn’t mean it’s good art.
Tizzy said on November 14th, 2007 at 11:44 pm:
I saw the cartoon - it WASN’T porn. It was funny, a bit tasteless, but NOT porn.
The site’s never been the same, enbarrassingly.
I don’t think I could run to a fake Warhol, let alone one with provenace. BTW, I hadn’t realised there was that many fakes around.
That’s the thing about art though - buy what you like rather than buy an investment.
canvas said on November 15th, 2007 at 12:22 pm:
Hi Tizzy, when things are left to a matter of ‘taste’ - well - then you know you’re in for a very boring time! LoL
I don’t know about Warhol ‘fakes’ - but the Warhol factory produced SOOO much work - much of which the artist never even saw…if I was going to purchase an original Warhol then I would want to select a work that had ‘the artists touch’… Know what I mean?
I can’t believe Mugrabi paid £10m for ‘Liz’. And I can’t believe Jay Jopling would pay so much $$$ for that Richard Prince work! Silly buggers going on?
Good artists NEVER want to see their work end up at auction. It’s demoralising.
Oh well, big business is big business - it has nothing to do with art! haha. Sad but true.
Tizzy said on November 15th, 2007 at 5:39 pm:
So does Hugh Grant now have to pay CGT on this investment? Or is artwork exempt? Anyone know?
canvas said on November 15th, 2007 at 5:50 pm:
I think Hugh Grant has to buy a fabulous pad around 59th Street - Central Park.
Tizzy said on November 15th, 2007 at 6:02 pm:
OK, just got the info from http://www.artcollecting.co.uk/ArtForInvestment.html
” If you sell an artwork for over £6,000 you will be liable for Capital Gains Tax at your rate of income tax, below the yearly £8,800 Capital Gains Tax exemption bracket. ”
But Hugh’s probably a non-dom/tax exile, so no fat cheque for Gordon, sorry, Alastair.
Tizzy said on November 15th, 2007 at 6:14 pm:
I notice The Guardian has got Ed’s article -
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ed_vaizey/2007/11/modern_art_is_rightwing.html
Over 100 comments!
Tizzy said on November 15th, 2007 at 6:22 pm:
PS That Bush collage by Yeo
[img]http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2007/08/29/bush460.jpg[/img]
canvas said on November 15th, 2007 at 8:59 pm:
That was a good article in the Guardian. Liked it.. But can I be really anal - and point out that it’s DAMIEN Hirst and Amanda SHARPE? Sorry…
Also, Mark Wallinger made an interesting political point through his art…let’s not forget him.
http://www.frieze.com/issue/review/mark_wallinger/
:)